Lots of misathropy here. "Oh, it won't work because it'll just be corrupted and because of evil people!" I wonder how many people think that all Trump, Brexit, whatever voters were racist and thus corrupt, yet those people run your democracy.
Not to mention, the mental evolution of humanity would pretty much mean the only people ruling such a system would be the people of high amounts of will and spirit capable of comprehending their own actions. I too have struggled with the idea of "checks and balances in totalitarianism", but the idea of Chinese philosophy and the Mandate of Heaven seems to be the best option of a check and balance. The goal would be that eventually, the time between transitions of rule would be thousands of years, if not longer, since the rule of the just would continue endlessly. A key trick is manipulating Overton windows to the advantage of society.
@Cyclonus
And this is different from a system where people like Donald Trump can be elected how? Which funny enough, by saying "Not my president", you're denying the legitimacy of democracy in some form.
@Hasan Prishtina
Oh, I agree. Most anything not physically impossible could've happened in history. But the long-term result is precisely leading up to one of those two examples.
Really, democracy became irresponsible the moment we gained the ability to wipe our species out thousands of times over with nukes and bioweapons.
@Kanna
If we will it [an eternal future for mankind], it is no dream. How ridiculous to believe in the inevitable extinction of mankind.
@Azereaux
Bullshit. There does indeed exist universal standards of justice and truth out there. The denial of absolute morality is one of the greatest flaws of modern culture. You don't even need to be religious to see there is an absolute standard for morality, and yes, it's capable of being discovered by mankind in the same way that mathematics is a factual law of the universe established by humanity.
#1992654
It's concise, I like it. It sums me up nicely and is a nice capsule of my ideas.
@pyro
At first I was skeptical of the Horseshoe Theory, but now I embrace it as true. I'd say I'm so far left that I'm so far right that I'm so far left. There's conservatives (most all you) and revolutionaries in this world, and I ally myself with the latter. It's just a shame most of the "revolutionary" class is all far-right nowadays.
Thermodynamic theory, hah, given the insanely long amount of time for that to actually be an issue, I believe the infinite capabilities of humanity could find a way around it. Like, say, punching a hole into another universe not about to die (sounds like science fiction, given a billion years of technological advancement, would it be?). Same goes with other theories like the Big Rip and photon decay.
@JeanP
My favourite was the description of WWII Nazi collaborator, Bulgarian prime minister Bogdan Filov, as a man who "preferred making history to teaching it". I actually trained in college to be a history teacher, the only reason I didn't was because there was no money in it compared to the long hours of stress and the government chipping away at your rights. So yes, I too would prefer making history to teaching it. But that's only a dream, in the end.
@CrowFood
But you would have freedom. A society where victimless crimes like smoking pot or dropping acid or consensual incest is not a crime seems like a society full of freedom to me. The Second Amendment would be upheld (assuming you're not a criminal or a mentally ill individual). All I'd want is checks on the press (right now, the mainstream media can blatantly lie and it be considered "acceptable" unlike when, say, Alex Jones lies or acts like an idiot) and of course, no democracy.
The freedom paradox is indeed interesting, since I stopped being a libertarian once I realised that absolute freedom cannot exist with an absolute government ensuring that freedom, otherwise you just have a horrible system, most akin to the Congo Free State with everyone there reading Atlas Shrugged, in place of the alleged "evil" government.
